Buoyancy in the stern!

[dunedin]

I am certain, on the basis of empirical experience, that a modern, wide stern lifts more quickly than, say, an IOR "pinched" stern.

There's also a sense of "obvious, innit ?" that a wide, open stern will be an easier target for a following and breaking wave but I am also conscious of the raging certainties of tenets of historical yacht design, such as "cod's head and mackerel tail" from a couple of generations ago which are now proven to be without good scientific foundation.

So many degrees of design freedom !

There is also the different ways of sailing boats. In previous times the thinking was to lie hove to, or tow ropes to slow down.
Modern thinking is often to keep sailing fairly briskly on a broad reach, which reduces the number of waves passing and their impacts.

 

[14K478]

Well that certainly fulfils the “row away factor” criteria! What is she?

She is a teak 12 ton cutter designed by WM Blake and built by Claud Whisstock in Woodbridge Suffolk in 1937 as a wedding present for her first owners, Mr & Mrs E. P. Allen, who owned her for 12 years. She was then owned by Francis Mansfield for 33 years and then by me for 29, and her present owner, who takes exceptionally good care of her, has had her for eleven years. She doesn’t change hands often!

Now lives on the Beaulieu River.

 

[14K478]

There is also the different ways of sailing boats. In previous times the thinking was to lie hove to, or tow ropes to slow down.
Modern thinking is often to keep sailing fairly briskly on a broad reach, which reduces the number of waves passing and their impacts.

“Up to a point, Lord Copper!”

Nothing new about doing that, but there are limits beyond which it should not be taken.

I can find advice to this effect in Graham and Tew’s “Manual for Small Yachts” published in 1947.

 

[onesea]

There is also the different ways of sailing boats. In previous times the thinking was to lie hove to, or tow ropes to slow down.
Modern thinking is often to keep sailing fairly briskly on a broad reach, which reduces the number of waves passing and their impacts.

Like always there are exceptions but agree allot has changed in the last 40 years:
Fibreglass has taken over wood - the shapes possible are very different,
Boats can be lighter - which normally means faster,
Accurate forecasts are available world wide for 3-4 days ahead often more,

I am sure more can be listed.

1, 40years plus ago, you took the weather that came to you. You had little choice, even coastal sailers could be caught out.
2, Now days with a modern boat can get accurate forecasts and has the speed to sail out of bad weather. A well skippered boat in most conditions should not get caught out.

Even the Ocean globe race is giving weather warnings to its fleet to avoid the worst of the weather.

Older boats by design where better designed to hunker down and take weather. Modern boats by design maybe less so much and are better sailed through or out of the weather.

However modern boats can be much more demanding on crew, by shape and weight.

Older boats often do not/ did not have the ability to sail out of weather due to forecasts and speed limitations.

As for shape and size of boat I would want to be caught out in. My answer I would rather not get caught out at all. Having seen and been in bad weather at sea.

As for the OP with modern forecasts she would appear quite capable to me. Is she the 38’ boat I would choose? Well that depends on the gear, size of crew, and passage intended,

 

[LittleSister]

Colin Archers (used to be) regarded as the ultimate in seaworthiness, and they probably have less reserve buoyancy in the stern (being double enders) than even an IOR Swan 38.

I don't have any firm views on what's best, and think the principal advantage of a double ender is aesthetic!

I'm not sure being a double-ender (or not) in itself determines the amount of reserve buoyancy. My own double-ender (Baltic 'roots', so distantly related to Colin Archers, but certainly not designed with 'ultimate storm' sailing in mind) seems to have quite a lot of it, as the hull extending well aft and abeam of the of the waterline. (The aft hull actually extends a little beyond the deck, and recurves back to it.)



(Actually, looking again at that pic I think the hull might well go even faster backwards than forwards! Uncannily reminiscent of one of they there newfangled racing scow bows, don't you think? )

I've heard it claimed that a double-ender will tend to part a wave (I guess at least a wave not much higher than the deck), as opposed, I suppose, to breaking against a vertical transom and breaking over it. I've no idea whether there's any truth to it.

The comments in previous about open transoms are focused on the draining of water (and people!) out of the stern, but it does also mean that the cockpit isn't contributing buoyancy, and neither is whatever there is aft of it.. (Of course, an enclosed cockpit isn't contributing buoyancy after being pooped, either.)

I imagine that weight distribution, especially vis-a-vis reserve buoyancy distribution, would also be a significant factor.

 

[Mike Bryon]

Over 11 years since last in ocean. Finding previous boat hard to follow. Crew have all flown so requirements completely changed. Seeking something much smaller but definitely was spoilt. As a family, crossed Atlantic in few hours less than 14 days. Sometimes did 200nm day runs. Don’t think I could settle with a boat described as ‘ponderous’.

Once cruised Irish Atlantic coast and was able to run and hid from the weather but been caught twice in western approaches despite watching it. Had a horrible time rounding top of Denmark late November in a Sweden 38. Fortunately, without kids. If you are covering miles sooner or later, you’re going to catch some weather.

Here we are leaving one trip me at helm, kids at bow.